[Studor13]

Without going backwards and forwards on everything that you said, I would like to add just a couple of notes.



The D3 is still an outstanding camera however you look at it and if you can't tell the difference between the performance of a lens on the screen, you are not going to see it in print.



The one thing that bothers me about PZ's rating is that there is a bias on resolution to give the 1 to 5 stars.



Whilst resolution is important the true value of a lens is what I call the X-factor. For example, the 180mm f/2.8 AFD lens has it. And so does the 50mm f/1.4 AFS.



Here is where we get back to the 18-35mm. In terms of colors, contrast and the X-factor, this lens has it. According to PZ's testing and more importantly recommendations, the 18-55 II, 18-55 VR as well as the 18-70mm DX are all rated higher.



I have these lenses and I can assure you they are simply not in the same class in giving an X-factor. Nikon is not so stupid to continue to make and sell a lens that costs 700 euros (in Slovenia) if it was sh*t, are they?



As for your comment "but close to nothing about the optical quality of the lens used", this is not true. I can tell that things such as CA, vignetting, contrast and color can be seen by the naked eye. And of course sharpness that PZ is totally stuck on.



I can relate to why owners of the 85mm f/1.4 being annoyed with PZ's findings because from what I understand it has a huge amount of the X-factor.



My suggestion for PZ is to reduce the importance of resolution in the rating, especially the corners. When you print - remember this ancient process - the last few millimeters are framed! No one is going to see it or care.



As for how you would measure the X-factor, well that's an entirely different story.